Thursday, December 08, 2011
Fairness!
Pres. Obama spoke in Texas Kansas yesterday (he seemed a bit confused about where he was) and went on and on about fairness. I think he might have used the word "fair" more than the first person singular pronoun, possibly the first time ever that he uttered any word more than "I", "my" and "me" in a speech.
To channel an old boss, fairness is like motherhood. Who could possibly be against it? I'm certainly all for fairness in society; my problem (as I have said before) has to do with the answers to two questions:
The editorial board at Investors Business Daily has a similar take: "The problem is that fairness, just like hope and change, can mean anything anyone wants it to." (H/T Professor Reynolds)
I'm getting a bad feeling that Obama is messing with those immutable laws.
(0) comments
To channel an old boss, fairness is like motherhood. Who could possibly be against it? I'm certainly all for fairness in society; my problem (as I have said before) has to do with the answers to two questions:
- Who gets to decide what's "fair"?
- Why do those people get to make that decision?
The editorial board at Investors Business Daily has a similar take: "The problem is that fairness, just like hope and change, can mean anything anyone wants it to." (H/T Professor Reynolds)
I'm getting a bad feeling that Obama is messing with those immutable laws.
Labels: Economics, Fairness, Obama, politics, Populism
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Immutable Laws
Reading the papers and online news about what's going on in Europe, China, Washington, New York, California and other places around the world, it occurs to me that there are several types of laws that no politician, legislature, dictator or elected leader, however powerful, can change, affect or do anything whatsoever about, except possibly to delay the inevitable in some limited circumstances. Among these are the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics, the laws of economics and the law of unintended consequences with its famous corollary, Murphy's Law.
Any action taken contrary to or in disregard of any of these laws is doomed to failure. Sometimes that failure is catastrophic. For example, I'm no expert but it seems what is going on in the Eurozone is a prime candidate for such a catastrophe.
The unfortunate part is that the politicians, etc., who take such actions usually either are not around to experience the consequences of their hubris or exempt themselves from those consequences, and the masses of people affected by those actions usually suffer out of all proportion to their behavior.
In this election season in the United States, we would do well to ascertain who among the candidates at all levels (including incumbents) are most and least likely to ignore or violate those immutable laws, and vote accordingly.
Labels: Economics, government, Law, politicians
Monday, November 28, 2011
Barney's Going Bye-bye!
After 16 terms in the House of Representatives, Barney Frank (D-MA) is not standing for re-election. Hoo-raw!
Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I think Mr. Frank and his co-conspirator former Sen. Chris Dodd are the two individuals most to blame for the housing meltdown in 2008 and the subsequent spiral into worldwide recession, the effects of which are still being felt here and abroad, as well as the additional regulatory burden that has done so much to retard the recovery.
I have no idea what the underlying reasons might be for Mr. Frank's retirement at this time, but whatever they are, his departure is good news for the Republic.
Now the good people of Massachusetts have an opportunity to move toward redemption by electing someone in Mr. Frank's place who won't lie, browbeat, intimidate and pontificate, and who might actually have some appreciation for the laws of economics.
(0) comments
Not that my opinion matters all that much, but I think Mr. Frank and his co-conspirator former Sen. Chris Dodd are the two individuals most to blame for the housing meltdown in 2008 and the subsequent spiral into worldwide recession, the effects of which are still being felt here and abroad, as well as the additional regulatory burden that has done so much to retard the recovery.
I have no idea what the underlying reasons might be for Mr. Frank's retirement at this time, but whatever they are, his departure is good news for the Republic.
Now the good people of Massachusetts have an opportunity to move toward redemption by electing someone in Mr. Frank's place who won't lie, browbeat, intimidate and pontificate, and who might actually have some appreciation for the laws of economics.
Labels: Barney Frank, Congress, Democrats, politicians, politics, Progressivisim
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Northeast Pre-Halloween Snowstorm
Fox News Online is reporting a major snowstorm today, October 29, covering most of the northeastern United States. New York's Central Park set a record for October snowfall as of 2 PM, as the snow continues to fall.
No word on the effect of the weather on the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
What might explain this rare meteorological event? Easy: it's on account of global warming, and it's all Bush's fault
(0) comments
No word on the effect of the weather on the Occupy Wall Street crowd.
What might explain this rare meteorological event? Easy: it's on account of global warming, and it's all Bush's fault
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Khadaffi Dead
It's all over the news this morning that Mummar Khadaffi (however one spells the name) is dead of acute lead poisoning of the brain. The Libyan dictator allegedly was first shot in both legs, then in the head, following which the anti-Khadaffi people who shot him removed one of his shoes and beat him with it. It is my understanding that this is one of the most vile things one Muslim can do to another.
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow.
(0) comments
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving fellow.
Labels: dictators, Kadafi, Libya
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The "Occupiers"
After several weeks now of the "occupiers" on Wall Street, in DC and dozens of other cities, it seems to me, based on the statements I've heard on TV and radio, and on the signs I've seen on TV and the Internet, that the "occupiers" are a bunch of spoiled brats who want something for nothing, and they don't want "the greedy rich" to have anything more than they do. The fact that the "greedy rich" have worked hard and risked their own money to invest in their own businesses or others doesn't matter--the "occupiers" want the same thing with no work and no risk. I have to ask, what are they smoking?
The problem with "something for nothing" is that if it happens it all it doesn't last very long, because pretty soon there's no "something" left and those who can produce the "something" won't do it for "nothing". That, in a nutshell, is the lesson of Atlas Shrugged.
The ultimate "something for nothing" behavior is looting and robbery. I somehow doubt those "occupiers" would enjoy living in a society where the only law is the law of the jungle. Nor would they enjoy living in a society where the government tells you where to work and what work to do, and where everyone has the same standard of living irrespective of talent, ability, drive and ambition, which doesn't really exist and hasn't ever existed, because there are always "fat cats" of one kind or another, whether business tycoons, dictators or royalty. In short, that society would be made up of slaves and slave drivers. At least in today's America, the "fat cats" came by their wealth without murdering or imprisoning anyone. Idi Amin, anyone? Or maybe Mugabe, or closer to home, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? I hereby invite anyone who thinks those societies are better than the USA to move there--permanently.
(0) comments
The problem with "something for nothing" is that if it happens it all it doesn't last very long, because pretty soon there's no "something" left and those who can produce the "something" won't do it for "nothing". That, in a nutshell, is the lesson of Atlas Shrugged.
The ultimate "something for nothing" behavior is looting and robbery. I somehow doubt those "occupiers" would enjoy living in a society where the only law is the law of the jungle. Nor would they enjoy living in a society where the government tells you where to work and what work to do, and where everyone has the same standard of living irrespective of talent, ability, drive and ambition, which doesn't really exist and hasn't ever existed, because there are always "fat cats" of one kind or another, whether business tycoons, dictators or royalty. In short, that society would be made up of slaves and slave drivers. At least in today's America, the "fat cats" came by their wealth without murdering or imprisoning anyone. Idi Amin, anyone? Or maybe Mugabe, or closer to home, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? I hereby invite anyone who thinks those societies are better than the USA to move there--permanently.
Labels: Cuba, dictators, Economics, Occupy Wall Street
Monday, September 19, 2011
"Fair Share"? Who Says?
So our beloved President Obama has come out with a "new" deficit reduction program that oozes with class-warfare populism, calling for those millionaires and billionaires (although I don't think he used the phrase) to pay their "fair share" of taxes. Now, as a general principle, I don't think the hyper-wealthy, like the President's friend Warren Buffett, really should be paying a lower rate than the typical middle-class family with 2.3 kids, but I also think that raising income tax rates on anyone is not a good idea right now, in the worst economic slump since the Great Depression.
What bugs me about Mr. O's philosophy is this notion of "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Who gets to define it? Are the nearly 50% (I've seen many numbers, all between 45% and 50%) of Americans who pay no federal income tax paying their "fair share". According to the Tax Foundation website, Americans in the top 25% of income class pay 86.3% of all income taxes, while making 67.4% of all income. Are those people paying their "fair share"? Or are they being gouged? What about people who are gaming the system? Are they paying their "fair share"?
On the last point, this weekend I heard an anecdote about a family in New Jersey, The wife doesn't hold a paying job. The husband works, but only half his pay is "on the books" and the rest is paid in cash "under the table". As a result of this arrangement, the family qualifies as "poor" and therefore get all kinds of benefits, such as food stamps and other kinds of "entitlements" and two of their kids get to go to the local community college for free. Of course, they don't pay any federal income tax. To my way of thinking, these people aren't paying their "fair share"--they're not even in that ballpark. What they're doing is free-riding, adding to the burden of everyone else. If I were king the husband and his employer would be headed for jail. I'm sure some qualified out-of work person would be more than happy to take over the employer's business and run it legitimately so that the other employees could keep their jobs.
"Fair share" is a fine-sounding phrase. Everyone agrees that everyone should do their "fair share". It's like motherhood--who's against motherhood? (Well, except for those population bomb crazies.) But like almost everything else in politics, the devil is very much in the details, and what usually happens is that people of influence are able to get themselves loopholes and exemptions and whatnot, and "fair share" inevitably morphs into screwing the average taxpayer.
All that is why I have come around to believing that the country should repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and rely exclusively on consumption taxes for revenues. That tax structure would be much easier to administer and enforce, it would do away with the annual ritual of Form 1040, and would reduce the opportunities for our political class to do favors for their favorite constituents (sometimes called "graft"). If we are to have a consumption tax, repealing Amendment XVI is a must, or we'll wind up with what they have in Europe--income taxes plus a consumption tax (VAT), and we're now seeing how well that's working out in the daily financial headlines.
(0) comments
What bugs me about Mr. O's philosophy is this notion of "fair share." What is a "fair share"? Who gets to define it? Are the nearly 50% (I've seen many numbers, all between 45% and 50%) of Americans who pay no federal income tax paying their "fair share". According to the Tax Foundation website, Americans in the top 25% of income class pay 86.3% of all income taxes, while making 67.4% of all income. Are those people paying their "fair share"? Or are they being gouged? What about people who are gaming the system? Are they paying their "fair share"?
On the last point, this weekend I heard an anecdote about a family in New Jersey, The wife doesn't hold a paying job. The husband works, but only half his pay is "on the books" and the rest is paid in cash "under the table". As a result of this arrangement, the family qualifies as "poor" and therefore get all kinds of benefits, such as food stamps and other kinds of "entitlements" and two of their kids get to go to the local community college for free. Of course, they don't pay any federal income tax. To my way of thinking, these people aren't paying their "fair share"--they're not even in that ballpark. What they're doing is free-riding, adding to the burden of everyone else. If I were king the husband and his employer would be headed for jail. I'm sure some qualified out-of work person would be more than happy to take over the employer's business and run it legitimately so that the other employees could keep their jobs.
"Fair share" is a fine-sounding phrase. Everyone agrees that everyone should do their "fair share". It's like motherhood--who's against motherhood? (Well, except for those population bomb crazies.) But like almost everything else in politics, the devil is very much in the details, and what usually happens is that people of influence are able to get themselves loopholes and exemptions and whatnot, and "fair share" inevitably morphs into screwing the average taxpayer.
All that is why I have come around to believing that the country should repeal the Sixteenth Amendment and rely exclusively on consumption taxes for revenues. That tax structure would be much easier to administer and enforce, it would do away with the annual ritual of Form 1040, and would reduce the opportunities for our political class to do favors for their favorite constituents (sometimes called "graft"). If we are to have a consumption tax, repealing Amendment XVI is a must, or we'll wind up with what they have in Europe--income taxes plus a consumption tax (VAT), and we're now seeing how well that's working out in the daily financial headlines.
Labels: Economics, Obama, politicians, politics, Populism, Tax policy, Taxes
